Very few people hear both the Orchid and Pagoda in proximity, out of the relatively few who hear both DACs under any circumstances. The reason is the two DACs address somewhat different priorities and appeal to different preferences and people.
Orchid is a 16 bit DAC. The receiver chip can accept up to 24/192 signal but the TDA1541x will only process the 16 most significant bits of 24 bit material. These older R2R chips, and I include the PCM56x family and the TDA1545x generally, can deliver a musically-convincing presentation that errs toward the euphonic, delivers very good tone density, have good dynamic punch, and are more forgiving of mediocre digital material than most modern DACs due to their less-than-ultimate resolution. When implemented well wrt their context circuitry, these vintage 16 bit R2R DACs have a direct, authentic sound. This is certainly true for Orchid.
Pagoda uses the PCM1704x, last of the mainstream R2R chips, but a more modern, legitimate 24 bits DAC. Compared to Orchid (and Canary, Stockholm 2, even Havana) the Pagoda has what immediately strikes you as a more objective, incisive sound, with more extensive spatial projection and heard resolution, even on 16 bit material. There is simply more revealed nuance, distinct separation of transient events in music, through Pagoda than Orchid. Not everyone thinks this is better. Pagoda is definitely less forgiving of poor material than Orchid. It demands (or at least more obviously rewards) better sources, for its resolving power will lay bare deficiencies in recordings, spinners and streamers. Pagoda has all of the tone density and shove we expect from R2R DACs. It is musically-convincing on good material and sources but unlike Orchid and the other mhdt 16 bit DACs, musicality isn't enforced on poorer recordings and / or sources to the same degree.
The Orchid and its 16 bit mhdt relatives essentially enforce musicality, which flags their lesser objectivity relative to Pagoda. Which of course many people will prefer. On the other hand, Pagoda can reveal more of what's captured in your digital recordings and lay out a more generous, dimensioned, soundstage, but you are more responsible for configuring for musicality through your system equipment and listening material choices.
In mhdt, I started out with Havana (and Havana Balanced), skipped Stockholm, bought Atlantis, Pagoda and Pagoda Balanced. I wouldn't give up Pagoda's spaciousness, tone, resolving power and ability to process 24 bit material to gain the intrinsic musicality that Orchid enforces partly by resolving less information. But you're less likely to have to upgrade something else in your system upon making a DAC purchase if you buy Orchid over Pagoda. Mhdt DACs have generally had an intrinsic musicality. Outside of their briefly-made AKM delta-sigma DAC, Pagoda is the most different of the line.
The two mhdt DACs that neatly split the difference between the Orchid and Pagoda, are Atlantis and Istanbul. The Atlantis, using the AD1862N 20 bit R2R chip, has the essential bias toward objective sound that the Pagoda has, but is significantly more forgiving of flawed material and sources. Istanbul, built around the 18 bit PCM61x mixes musicality and objectivity to be reasonable at both. Both have receiver chips that can intake up to 24/192.
All of the above are improved across the board by using tube socket adaptors enabling 6922 tubes instead of the 5670 family. All gain in spatial projection, dynamics and scale. The 16 bit models gain some measure of added objectivity, and the Pagoda gains a little enforced musicality. Atlantis and Istanbul get more of what they already are.
Which is better? Depends on priorities, and wrt Pagoda, your openness to possibly having to upgrade a source. Which is preferred? For me, Pagoda. Not because I wouldn't enjoy the sound of an Orchid. Pagoda just reveals more of the intricacies in music played through it. The more euphonic Orchid is, however, easy and fun.
Phil
Orchid is a 16 bit DAC. The receiver chip can accept up to 24/192 signal but the TDA1541x will only process the 16 most significant bits of 24 bit material. These older R2R chips, and I include the PCM56x family and the TDA1545x generally, can deliver a musically-convincing presentation that errs toward the euphonic, delivers very good tone density, have good dynamic punch, and are more forgiving of mediocre digital material than most modern DACs due to their less-than-ultimate resolution. When implemented well wrt their context circuitry, these vintage 16 bit R2R DACs have a direct, authentic sound. This is certainly true for Orchid.
Pagoda uses the PCM1704x, last of the mainstream R2R chips, but a more modern, legitimate 24 bits DAC. Compared to Orchid (and Canary, Stockholm 2, even Havana) the Pagoda has what immediately strikes you as a more objective, incisive sound, with more extensive spatial projection and heard resolution, even on 16 bit material. There is simply more revealed nuance, distinct separation of transient events in music, through Pagoda than Orchid. Not everyone thinks this is better. Pagoda is definitely less forgiving of poor material than Orchid. It demands (or at least more obviously rewards) better sources, for its resolving power will lay bare deficiencies in recordings, spinners and streamers. Pagoda has all of the tone density and shove we expect from R2R DACs. It is musically-convincing on good material and sources but unlike Orchid and the other mhdt 16 bit DACs, musicality isn't enforced on poorer recordings and / or sources to the same degree.
The Orchid and its 16 bit mhdt relatives essentially enforce musicality, which flags their lesser objectivity relative to Pagoda. Which of course many people will prefer. On the other hand, Pagoda can reveal more of what's captured in your digital recordings and lay out a more generous, dimensioned, soundstage, but you are more responsible for configuring for musicality through your system equipment and listening material choices.
In mhdt, I started out with Havana (and Havana Balanced), skipped Stockholm, bought Atlantis, Pagoda and Pagoda Balanced. I wouldn't give up Pagoda's spaciousness, tone, resolving power and ability to process 24 bit material to gain the intrinsic musicality that Orchid enforces partly by resolving less information. But you're less likely to have to upgrade something else in your system upon making a DAC purchase if you buy Orchid over Pagoda. Mhdt DACs have generally had an intrinsic musicality. Outside of their briefly-made AKM delta-sigma DAC, Pagoda is the most different of the line.
The two mhdt DACs that neatly split the difference between the Orchid and Pagoda, are Atlantis and Istanbul. The Atlantis, using the AD1862N 20 bit R2R chip, has the essential bias toward objective sound that the Pagoda has, but is significantly more forgiving of flawed material and sources. Istanbul, built around the 18 bit PCM61x mixes musicality and objectivity to be reasonable at both. Both have receiver chips that can intake up to 24/192.
All of the above are improved across the board by using tube socket adaptors enabling 6922 tubes instead of the 5670 family. All gain in spatial projection, dynamics and scale. The 16 bit models gain some measure of added objectivity, and the Pagoda gains a little enforced musicality. Atlantis and Istanbul get more of what they already are.
Which is better? Depends on priorities, and wrt Pagoda, your openness to possibly having to upgrade a source. Which is preferred? For me, Pagoda. Not because I wouldn't enjoy the sound of an Orchid. Pagoda just reveals more of the intricacies in music played through it. The more euphonic Orchid is, however, easy and fun.
Phil